Interesting, a little better than speculated in some areas and a little worse in others.Compared to Canon S100: low iso is only a little over 1 stop advantage, which is probably right (I was thinking more towards 2 stops but likely it was the new camera enthusiasm talking). Much better on the other parameters.

Interesting, a little better than speculated in some areas and a little worse in others.Compared to Canon S100: low iso is only a little over 1 stop advantage, which is probably right (I was thinking more towards 2 stops but likely it was the new camera enthusiasm talking). Much better on the other parameters.

Some critique against it is that at higher iso it loses the color accuracy faster than other cameras, such as Nikon J1/V1, don't know if this is true.

Bottom line, for this size or less (pocketable) there is nothing better on the market.

Agree. Beside making the classical dual illuminant profile, I may decide to make single/dual illuminant profiles on specific high ISO to be able to get fine colors for nightlife or indoor parties.Before anyone asks, yes: I'd like to have true colors even for party shots. That's me

1. "I've noticed this too. For still images, steadyshot doesn't seem to do anything at all at the wide end and maybe 1 stop at the long end. I find the IS on my canon s90 to be extremely effective, so I'm pretty sure it's not something I'm doing wrong.

On the other hand, steadyshot on video is fantastic. Unfortunately I don't really care about video too much."

2. "Hopefully it can be rectified soon.Maybe they forgot to enable it in firmware !But that would be embarrassing."

So, I've asked Sony about that.

Hope to have good news because, it's an interresting feature when hiking or biking without a tripod !

As a side note about the screen: it looks better in the sun than other LCDs BUT it has to be clean. If it gets a thin grease/dust pelicle on it as most do its performance is not that good.And it scratches easily! I cleaned it with my t-shirt (I know) and a got a small scratch on it, and I didn't see any particles on it before cleaning. As Murphy law is working this was just one day before the shipment of the semirigid protective screen arrived and the first LCD I scratch (ever)

1. "I've noticed this too. For still images, steadyshot doesn't seem to do anything at all at the wide end and maybe 1 stop at the long end. I find the IS on my canon s90 to be extremely effective, so I'm pretty sure it's not something I'm doing wrong.

On the other hand, steadyshot on video is fantastic. Unfortunately I don't really care about video too much."

Played a bit with the RX100 this evening. Indoor, mid level light.Focus is almost OK but goes a bit slow when on telephoto end.To me, at the moment, the worst issues are the size and the handling. Despite having quite small hands I really have to keep the camera with the finger tips.It's very difficult to get stable shots.Sony worked hard to reduce sizes and weight. I'd pay for a bulkier (not bulky) body!

The lens dial is driving me nuts. If you change it's behavior on a mode, switching to another mode it carries the new function with it.I usually set as "zoom" for movie mode and "standard" for PASM modes.

Now that I installed LR 4.2 RC I started to play with the raws directly in LR. I did a quick process of a photo that should stretch the DR

- The jpg was out of camera with extra processing in LR 4.1. - The LR was raw directly processed in LR 4.2 RC- DxO was initially processed partially in DxO 7.5 then sent to LR 4.2RC where I continued (use of the "HDR" slider in DxO looked quite bad)

Although some say the jpeg engine is very good you can get much better results (at least when viewed at 100%) with both LR and DxO and I'm sure the difference would be obvious when printing larger also.The bigger question is between LR and DxO and I can't say for sure now. The LR results look as good without the trip in DxO and the DxO look overprocessed; thing is in print they tend to look better when not printed very large.

I need to figure out if it's worth doing anything more than geometric corrections and lens softness correction, +/- noise correction. The real test would be a larger print of something that I like (this particular example is not something that I plan on printing).

PS. I posted the above images so you can make your own conclusions also.

Was wondering if anyone has been running LR 4.2 Beta to process their RX100 RAW images? Do you convert the images in 4.2 and go back to 4.1 to edit? Or is 4.2 stable enough to complete the editing, and final printing? Are there any major (or minor) problems - dangers to installing the 4.2 beta?? Can it corrupt all your saved presets, settings, or paper presets?? Or are they copied from 4.1 and not updated by changes made while in 4.2? Sorry for so many run-on questions but I've never been tempted to run a "release candidate" before.

Have not used the camera much yet but It looks pretty nice! One thing that bothers me though is the lack of a filter adapter!!! I always cap my lenses with a multi-coated UV filter as soon as received.Why do we need to tape(!!) a modified filter holder to the camera??!! This is after all, an "enthusiasts" camera.......Has anyone found a better solution?